Get detailed information about a specific control
Returns full details for a single control by its code identifier: title, description, domain, and framework. Control codes are framework-specific (e.g. 'A.5.1' for ISO 27001, 'AC-1' for NIST 800-53).
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a successful 200 response and fails to address error conditions (e.g., invalid code), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a clear title line and a short paragraph. The inclusion of a 'Responses' section adds structure, though it is minimal (only 200). Overall, every sentence contributes value without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and return fields. However, it omits error handling, response format details beyond 'Content-Type: application/json', and any prerequisites. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'code' parameter as a framework-specific identifier with examples ('A.5.1', 'AC-1'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify valid formats, patterns, or how to obtain valid codes, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for a single control by its code identifier, listing the fields returned (title, description, domain, framework) and providing examples of framework-specific codes. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_get_framework_controls (which lists multiple controls) by emphasizing a single control lookup, it does not explicitly delineate from all related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_get_framework_controls or agent_search. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context-dependent recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools cover overlapping crosswalk and coverage territory: agent_coverage_crosswalk, agent_coverage_report, agent_cross_framework_map, agent_crosswalk_pair, and agent_combined_coverage could all be chosen for similar questions. The near-duplicate agent_get_framework_controls and agent_get_framework_controls_by_name also creates avoidable ambiguity.
All tools share the agent_ prefix and snake_case style, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: many are verb_noun (agent_buy_crosswalk, agent_search_courses, agent_get_framework), while others are noun phrases or descriptive fragments (agent_capital_by_function, agent_combined_coverage, agent_controls_touched_by, agent_signals_this_week). The convention is readable but not uniform.
27 tools is above the 25-tool threshold and the set feels heavier than necessary because several crosswalk/coverage tools could be consolidated into a smaller family. The broad domain justifies variety, but the count is bloated by overlapping query surfaces and at least one redundant route.
The domain is well covered for a read-only compliance intelligence platform: framework discovery, control lookup, crosswalk analysis, course search, funding-signal exploration, and purchase-link generation are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to inspect full control lists for arbitrary domains or retrieve mappings for a specific target control, but agents can generally work around them.
